12678Re: A "Senior Moment"
- Jun 9, 2008--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tom Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:
> And again in this post, you demand that the person has to be found"guilty"
> in order to justify "strict enforcement of the law".How the heck doyou do
> this. And as no one can guarantee a conviction at the point ofarrest, then
> I guess no one should ever be arrested.You're "playing games"... The fact is, that arrest and and detainment
until a person can go to trial and defend their self against charges
is not a punishment... At least that is the Judicial System's view...
The fact is that in most cases (barring capitol cases), a person has
an opportunity to make bail and get out of jail, if they are
incarcerated before they go to trial. So, yes I agree with a strict
code of enforcement after a trial has been had and the person is found
to be guilty in a court of law. What is so hard to understand about
Do you not understand the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? Is
this a new concept for you? Law Enforcement has to do it's job. They
have to patrol for and investigate crime. In doing so, if they find
there is evidence that a crime has been committed they are obligated
to take action. I see nothing wrong with giving Law Enforcement some
discretion on minor crimes, like criminal infractions. However, there
is CERTAINLY a need to give arrest power to Law Enforcement, and
certainly a need to insure the appearance of the defendant once he has
been arrested and charged. Again, this is not punishment. Is it
inconvenient for the person that is not guilty (after he goes to court
and proves it, Tom)? YES! Is being arrested and jailed pleasant? NO!
But these are part of a necessary process in order to hold criminals
accountable for the crimes they commit. Still, after all of that, it
is NOT punishment, at that point in time before trial no Judgment has
been passed, and the defendant, in most cases is given an opportunity
to free himself and return to his everyday life until he can go to trial.
Ideally, the THIEF would be arrested for theft, booked, and then
incarcerated until he could make bail. This is not a punishment
(AGAIN, Tom). And then he would go to trial, and if he is found not
guilty, then he would go home, and if he is found guilty, then he
would be taken to the courthouse steps with a crowd in tow, tied to a
post, have his pants pulled down, have his ass bared to the crowd, and
have someone take some skin off of his ass, given the proper medical
treatment if it is needed, and allowed to recuperate in the county
jail, and then sent home (Ohh, and by the way Tom, NOW that's
punishment). In the case of heinous crimes (murder, rape, child
molestation), keep the pants up and use bullets LIBERALLY! That is
what I personally believe would be an effective deterrent to some of
the STUPID crimes we are seeing these days.
And Sue, my sincerest apologies.. I had heard that the word "Liberal"
was a bad word and many people have great disdain towards being
referred to as that, but I never knew it was that bad.. I promise to
never call you the "L" word again. ;o)
I think you are either trying to play semantic games, or you have lost
your perspective on the sequence of events that occur from arrest to
conviction or exoneration (whichever is the case) in a criminal case; Tom.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>